TARUNESH BANSAL,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-34(4), DELHI, DELHI

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

Coming to the sole substantive issue between the parties regarding correctness of both the learned lower authorities’ action making section 69A r.w.s. 115BBE addition of Rs.29,17,000/-, a perusal of the case file indicates that the assessee herein is engaged in his regular business activities of delay in stationary and other related items whose cash deposits during demonetization only have been added forming subject Tarunesh Bansal 2 matter of adjudication. The Revenue could hardly dispute that even the learned assessing authority has accepted the assessee’s turnover of Rs.4,00,00,000/- excluding demonetization period in the relevant previous years. And also he had declared returned income from the very business of Rs.9,79,410/- which stands duly assessed.

Learned counsel further invites the tribunal’s attention to the assessee’s P & L account and other relevant entries in the regular books to buttress the point that his cash deposits infact represents business turnover only. The facts however remains that he has not discharged his onus to this effect before the learned lower authorities. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.3,00,000/- only representing the assessee’s profit element in the above cash sales, would just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.26,17,000/- in other words.

So far as assessee’s assessment under section 115BBE is concerned, we quote S.M.I.L.E Microfinance Limited Vs. The ACIT CC-1 in W.P.(MD) No.2078 of 2020 & W.M.P. (MD) No. 1742 of 2020 held that the said provision applied for transactions done on or after 01.04.2017 only. Tarunesh Bansal 3 6. This assessee’s appeal is partly allowed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 02/06/2025. (Satbeer Singh Godara)